Text of March 2nd 2008

Dear Ladies and Gentleman,

the doctor didn´t answered my letters form Nov. 11th 2007 and Jan. 27th 2008. He didn´t want tu argu about the matters happened and he does not allow the publication of his medical certificate. It will be self evident for me to respect the attitude of the doctor and so I have to leave to you to to interpret the attitude of the doctor. Because the doctor wants to stay anonymous, we will call him "Doctor x." in the simpliest way.

The method to make silence disagreeable reviewers of the systhem with treatening / direction into the psychiatry is really not very new. Such behaviour had already been normal in the Sowjet Union during the period of Stalin. Also case from the later GDR became to be known. Therefore politicians und jurists misuse verya ofte serious doctor and scientists for their unfair purposses. . Well, the doctors have to life at all and so they must stand to be misused in order to satisfy their orderes from justice and politics.

Now, dear users, you have to interprete yourselves, wheter and as far as this general statement is applicable to my case. Therefore I want to reprt about my rendez - vous with Dr. X.

Dr. X. was not been unknown to me, because I ´d contacted him alrady in summer 2000 at first. After I ´d reported about the evading of taxes of an appointed evangelical clergyman, the lawyer of the church district Herne (Kirchenkreis) threatenend me to direct me to the psychiatry. I could cause big damages for the church, so that more people could leave it, the lawyer wrote in his denunciation. I ´d been telling about the trustfullness of my reproaches aleady multiple in this website.

Here I want to member in a short way or for the information of users who haven´t read the other chapters of thios website. The evangeölical clergyman had incrminated himself evading taxes, what I prooved to the authoriteies by handwritten documents. Neither the clergyman himself nor his lwayer have never dienied the evading of taxes.

The guardianship court at the local court Herne (Amtsgericht) multiple denied to confirm my citation to a tal with Herrn Dr. X. even thoug there were several demands. Jurists do in fact never confirm anythin in order to hinder unpleasant discussion. Than I got a recommanded letter from the doctor in which he announced to vist me in my private flat. Because my flat is not very comfortable I proposed a metting at a neutral place. Dr. ... consented disinclinedly, and than we met in Recklinghausen. The talk should took only about ten minutes. We ddn´t spoke about the concrete matters happened. The doctor was not obviously interested in getting to know wheter my reproach of evading taxes against the clergyman had been true or not. We only spoke about geral points, who I behave with other people, etc. The doctor told me than that the investigations of the guardianship court will be discontinued. That was the end of this theme.

And now, I ´d already reported about it, I wanted to enforce in spring of 2005 the fine about 5.000,-- DM plus interests paid by me to the German Association for the Protection of Children (Deutscher Kinderschutzbund). But it will be a sacrilege and a political issue of first rang to want to enforce exactly the German Association for the Protection of Children (Deutscher Kinderschutzbund) in our alligated dieing out German people. The general prosecutor said: "It is an impertinance to demand money from the German Association for the Protection of Children. The German Association for the Protection of Children is short of cash and has spent the money elsewhere. ("Es ist eine Unverschämtheit, vom Kinderschutzbund Geld zu verlangen. Der Kinderschutzbund ist knapp bei Kasse und hat das Geld schon anderweitig ausgegeben." (Wordly quote from the trial at the local cort Herne (Amtsgericht) at March 15th 2005) Therefore it will be clear that it was a political trial which offered further good reasons for me to confirm my demand of asylum. In the case of a condemnation the court would have positively forced me to act immediately and to ask at once for political asylum in Siwitzerland at least. Anybody wanted to stand such a blame, and so the clever jurists got the idea, to attest me insanity* (* I don´t know, wheter this translation is right: In German language "Schuldunfähigkeit") in order to get a raeson to discontinue the trial against me. Therefore one needed a new expert - opinion.

At the beginnig of 2006 the same situation should took place. The doctor sent me a recommanded letter again I received with a delay of a few days. The doctor called me and said he wanted to visit me in my private flat, but I denied of reasons already well known. Than we arranged a conversation at a neutral place in the rural district Recklinghausen, I don´t want to write in a more concrete way. During the conversatio I had te impression that matters were very unpleasant for the doctor. He asked the court not to be summened personally to the following trial. But I demanded his hearing and the doctor came to the trial himself.

But let us start with the beginning. The conversation between the doctor and me at Jan. 20th 2006 took about two hours. At first the conversation was only small - talk which should nothin have in common with the relevant matters, private family matters, how my parents grew up, from where they came from, but also about general social and political themes. The talk got me on my nerves a little bit, because I could not see the sense of it. Did the doctor wanted to obtain by this behaviour my confidence by such a harless small - talk? But he reached the opposite in each case. The conersation became more and more irritated. But when we came to relevant matters the conversation became more and more relaxed. I reported about the matters happened, why I ´d been convicted innocently, why I wanted to enforce the fine, why I want to demand for political asylum in Canada etc.. During our conversation the doctor demonstrated to be appreciative, but it should become to be clear in his later expert - opnion, that the question of my innocence or fault was totally unimportant for him. I ´d placed comprehensive written evidenciary materials at the doctor´s disposal, but even at the trial the doctor conceded not having checked my materials in a sufficient way or de facto not at all. That means that the doctor was never been able to make his opinion about the case. The worth of his expert - opinion teds towards zero.

CONCLUSION: Jurists and doctors (if you want to call psychologist to be doctors) are not interested in getting to know the thruth - at political delcits at least. The sense of their behaviour is to prevent demages from the authority of the state and similar authoritarian organizations (for example the churches). Therefor reviewers will be criminalized or threatened with the psychiatry instead of discussing with them in real way. The Third Reich has been overcome for more than 60 years , the GDR (East Germany) has become history also for a long time. Couldn´t our alligated democratic legal state afford a little bit more openness and honesty instead of always thinking about new restrictions?

Dear Doctor!

Here could be published your opnion!